User:Sevgi/The Tyranny of Structurelessness

p = paragraph

The Tyranny of Structurelessness

by Jo Freeman aka Joreen

The earliest version of this article was given as a talk at a conference called by the Southern Female Rights Union, held in Beulah, Mississippi in May 1970. It was written up for Notes from the Third Year (1971), but the editors did not use it. It was then submitted to several movement publications, but only one asked permission to publish it; others did so without permission. The first official place of publication was in Vol. 2, No. 1 of The Second Wave (1972). This early version in movement publications was authored by Joreen. Different versions were published in the Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol. 17, 1972-73, pp. 151-165, and Ms. magazine, July 1973, pp. 76-78, 86-89, authored by Jo Freeman. This piece spread all over the world. Numerous people have edited, reprinted, cut, and translated "Tyranny" for magazines, books and web sites, usually without the permission or knowledge of the author. The version below is a blend of the three cited here. 

I think this p indicates that the author is criticising the non-permitted publications and is making the readers aware that either it is possible to take her work and use it in any sense or that she would appreciate the occasional question.

I later learned that on Tyranny of Tyranny Caty Levine it is mentioned that the paper has been taken out of context a lot and was used in arguments Jo had not intended to be a part of.

important words:

Permission

reprinted

translated

2.

During the years in which the women's liberation movement has been taking shape, a great emphasis has been placed on what are called leaderless, structureless groups as the main -- if not sole -- organizational form of the movement. The source of this idea was a natural reaction against the over-structured society in which most of us found ourselves, and the inevitable control this gave others over our lives, and the continual elitism of the Left and similar groups among those who were supposedly fighting this overstructuredness.
The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy counter to those tendencies to becoming a goddess in its own right. The idea is as little examined as the term is much used, but it has become an intrinsic and unquestioned part of women's liberation ideology. For the early development of the movement this did not much matter. It early defined its main goal, and its main method, as consciousness-raising, and the "structureless" rap group was an excellent means to this end. The looseness and informality of it encouraged participation in discussion, and its often supportive atmosphere elicited personal insight. If nothing more concrete than personal insight ever resulted from these groups, that did not much matter, because their purpose did not really extend beyond this.

Here she is pointing out where the need for structurelessness comes from and how people had a thirst for an open platform instead of a 'over-structured society'. She critically defines this idea of non-hierarchy while praising some aspects of it like The looseness and informality of it encouraged participation in discussion

important words:

rap group

looseness

goddess

3.

The basic problems didn't appear until individual rap groups exhausted the virtues of consciousness-raising and decided they wanted to do something more specific. At this point they usually foundered because most groups were unwilling to change their structure when they changed their tasks. Women had thoroughly accepted the idea of "structurelessness" without realizing the limitations of its uses. People would try to use the "structureless" group and the informal conference for purposes for which they were unsuitable out of a blind belief that no other means could possibly be anything but oppressive.
If the movement is to grow beyond these elementary stages of development, it will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organization and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about either of these. They can be and often are misused, but to reject them out of hand because they are misused is to deny ourselves the necessary tools to further development. We need to understand why "structurelessness" does not work.

She points out that there is evolution to go through for this idea of structureless group setting where we acknowledge where it doesn't work and what it cannot provide.She criticises women as well for accepting the idea without looking too deep into it.

important words:

consciousness-raising

blind belief

Formal and Informal Structures

4.

Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group.

I feel really called out with this p, I feel like this immediately sent me to all the social groups I've been a part of one way or another. It also reminds me of the feminist collectives in Istanbul and how they also had this structurelessness claim. I like that Jo also equates the imbalance of relations to a natural outcome of people relating to each other. I find that there is a fondness and cruelty in it which makes life liveable.

important words:

flexible

individuals

?:

predispositions : proneness, tendency

5.

This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. <Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so.(?)> Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.

Other than that she raises concern for the people who are not a part of the non-leaders group that gets to decide or veto things and how that creates an atmosphere of ambiguity that leads to participants not being able to trust some sort of structure that they will be kept in the loop. I really enjoy reading this since it kinda affirms my feelings of some structures I've come across in the past year and was not sure why it felt so terrible to be a part of seemingly great artist communities.

important words:

value-free

?:

laissez faire:'I let you do it'

6.

For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized. This is not to say that formalization of a structure of a group will destroy the informal structure. It usually doesn't. But it does hinder the informal structure from having predominant control and make available some means of attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the needs of the group at large. "Structurelessness" is organizationally impossible. We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a formally structured one. Therefore the word will not be used any longer except to refer to the idea it represents. Unstructured will refer to those groups which have not been deliberately structured in a particular manner. Structured will refer to those which have. A Structured group always has formal structure, and may also have an informal, or covert, structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites.

In this p Jo recognises the impossibilities of including everyone in decision making processes. She reiterates that this is also why a structure will form because there will be decisions to be made, whether the structure is pre-decided or not. This also gives way for small groups to form, which she refers to as 'elites'. I like how she defines and re-defines, choses not to use certain words because she doesn't believe in the reality of those. I think this is a very feminist way of writing where people take words and how they form thoughts really seriously. Not that I think this is a must but it is a layered way of writing that shows a lot of juice.

important words:
explicit X implicit

The Nature of Elitism

7.

"Elitist" is probably the most abused word in the women's liberation movement. It is used as frequently, and for the same reasons, as "pinko" was used in the fifties. It is rarely used correctly. Within the movement it commonly refers to individuals, though the personal characteristics and activities of those to whom it is directed may differ widely: An individual, as an individual can never be an elitist, because the only proper application of the term "elite" is to groups. Any individual, regardless of how well-known that person may be, can never be an elite.

Here she presets the in-context definition of 'elite' and makes it known that 'within the movement' there are no individuals that are elites, only groups of people. I think this is also to imply once again the movement is very group oriented and everything refers to groups of people, however when a group of people come together the group dynamics are instantly overlooked and the structurelessness is embraced in a way that doesn't conform everyone's way of working together. Collectivity is overlooked when a group of people decide on a purpose to come together upon.

important words:
pinko ?
pinko : Pinko is a pejorative term for a person on the left of the political spectrum. (wikipedia def)

8.

Correctly, an elite refers to a small group of people who have power over a larger group of which they are part, usually without direct responsibility to that larger group, and often without their knowledge or consent. A person becomes an elitist by being part of, or advocating the rule by, such a small group, whether or not that individual is well known or not known at all. Notoriety is not a definition of an elitist. The most insidious elites are usually run by people not known to the larger public at all. Intelligent elitists are usually smart enough not to allow themselves to become well known; when they become known, they are watched, and the mask over their power is no longer firmly lodged.

I like that at this point, she recognises that she seems like she is about to argue that elite means an individual not a group

important words:
Notoriety: being famous for a bad reason, infamy

8.

Elites are not conspiracies. Very seldom does a small group of people get together and deliberately try to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites are nothing more, and nothing less, than groups of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities. They would probably maintain their friendship whether or not they were involved in political activities; they would probably be involved in political activities whether or not they maintained their friendships. It is the coincidence of these two phenomena which creates elites in any group and makes them so difficult to break.

She defines 'elites' here as a natural formation of friends and recognises there is not a lot of times malintent is involved in elite groups forming.

9.

These friendship groups function as networks of communication outside any regular channels for such communication that may have been set up by a group. If no channels are set up, they function as the only networks of communication. Because people are friends, because they usually share the same values and orientations, because they talk to each other socially and consult with each other when common decisions have to be made, the people involved in these networks have more power in the group than those who don't. And it is a rare group that does not establish some informal networks of communication through the friends that are made in it.

The reason these elite groups create imbalance is that they are friends and friends talk to each other whether socially or not, the common ground these people have gives them the confidence, trust and opportunity to raise issues that they have talked about before or take action accordingly, since the rest of the group is scattered. important words:
orientations

10.

Some groups, depending on their size, may have more than one such informal communications network. Networks may even overlap. When only one such network exists, it is the elite of an otherwise Unstructured group, whether the participants in it want to be elitists or not. If it is the only such network in a Structured group it may or may not be an elite depending on its composition and the nature of the formal Structure. If there are two or more such networks of friends, they may compete for power within the group, thus forming factions, or one may deliberately opt out of the competition, leaving the other as the elite. In a Structured group, two or more such friendship networks usually compete with each other for formal power. This is often the healthiest situation, as the other members are in a position to arbitrate between the two competitors for power and thus to make demands on those to whom they give their temporary allegiance.

In The Care Manifesto by Jamie Hakim, the community's dynamics are a part of the care system and is carefully structured:

Fourth, caring communities are democratic. They must extend localised engagement and governance through radical municipalism and co-operatives, and rebuild the public sector through expanding and ‘insourcing’ its caring and welfare activities, rather than the outsourcing that accompanies privatisation.

On this p, Jo recognises that 2 is better than 1 and even if they are elites, if there is an option to choose one or the other the option gives power to the people who are not a part of the elites.

important words:
formal power

The inevitably elitist and exclusive nature of informal communication networks of friends is neither a new phenomenon characteristic of the women's movement nor a phenomenon new to women. Such informal relationships have excluded women for centuries from participating in integrated groups of which they were a part. In any profession or organization these networks have created the "locker room" mentality and the "old school" ties which have effectively prevented women as a group (as well as some men individually) from having equal access to the sources of power or social reward. Much of the energy of past women's movements has been directed to having the structures of decision-making and the selection processes formalized so that the exclusion of women could be confronted directly. As we well know, these efforts have not prevented the informal male-only networks from discriminating against women, but they have made it more difficult.